AI review
United States courts have ruled on the constitutionality of various police checkpoints, establishing clear boundaries between acceptable administrative stops and unconstitutional,,,GENERAL crime-control measures. While courts have approved checkpoints for sobriety, license verification, and immigration, they have not approved checkpoints designed specifically to find unlicensed weapons, as such tactics are generally considered unconstitutional general crime control.
Here is a breakdown of the legal landscape:
1. The Supreme Court Ruling on General Crime Checkpoints
-The definitive case is City of Indianapolis v. Edmond (2001), where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that checkpoints whose primary purpose is to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing (such as illegal drugs or unlicensed weapons) are unconstitutional.
-The Rationale: The Court determined that while stops for public safety (e.g., drunk driving or border security) are permissible, using checkpoints to catch "general crime" violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
-The Line: If a,checkpoint is designed to,say, "see if you have a gun," it is likely illegal. If it is designed to check for a driver's license and the officer happens to see an illegal gun in plain view, that may be admissible.
2. Legal vs. Illegal Checkpoints
-Legal (Administrative/Regulatory): Sobriety checkpoints, border patrols, and license/registration checks are generally legal because they have a specific, non-investigatory purpose.
-Illegal (General Crime Control): Checkpoints aimed at searching for illegal drugs, unlicensed weapons, or "crime" in high-crime areas are prohibited.
RecentWTF happened to the WTF h... by Reacher
Hot Take for Tyler Underw... by ThePAMan
Total Members: 142